Clark Iverson
Royal Oak, Michigan

Thanks to commondreams.org and to the previous writers who have covered important points. Permit me to add a couple of smaller, personal events from the election season, microcosms of larger forces.

First, my ten-year-old had an assignment for school that involved analyzing presidential debate number two. As he tried to take notes, the candidates' non-answers and disappearing differences made him want to scream from boredom. By contrast, Nader's excessively academic answers (in other forums, of course) were far more accessible to him. Ten is an impressionable age; the loss of respect for the major parties will linger.

Second, at a small rally at Oakland University in Rochester, MI, I watched as students and staff had their Green Party fliers confiscated and discarded on their way in to a large rally featuring Tipper Gore. Large posterboard signs reading "Tipper Rocks" were permissible, but deviation from that message was not.

There are other examples, too numerous to mention, but my point is that arrogance and dismissal by the Democrats is radicalizing people, especially young people. The response of first resort, to scream at them, is unlikely to win them back.

Thank you.

Donald Johnson
Nyack, New York

Katha Pollit probably should get her apology from Nader, but she is just about the only Nader critic who deserves one. And she, of course, ended up giving him her qualified support. All the other Nader critics that I've seen, without exception, were vicious and never once admitted that there might be serious reasons for voting against Gore as well as Bush. One crucial issue was the Iraqi sanctions. At one point are progressives going to realize that Democrats are often as bad as Republicans when it comes to human rights violations overseas? Ford and Carter helped the Indonesians commit genocide in East Timor in the late 70's. Reagan, with some Democratic help, supported death squads and terrorists in Central America. Clinton continued Bush Sr's policy of "punishing" Saddam by killing hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children. And we Naderites are supposed to feel guilty? Democrats will start living up to their supposed ideal of compassion when they realize they'll lose elections if they don't.

Sheila Newbery
Berkeley, California

Thanks so much for posting J. Lee Polnachek's article from the Jan. 2001 issue of ``The Women's Review of Books''. Polnachek articulates clearly and persuasively many of my own objections to the Clinton/Gore posture on women's issues and is particularly lucid on the question of the middle-class feminist's single-minded devotion to that sacred cow: Row vs. Wade.

Polnachek asks whether it's worth it: supporting the Clinton/Gore juggernaut (and its presumed support of Roe v. Wade) to the exclusion of other progressive candidates (Nader and LaDuke) who address a much broader spectrum of issues, all with an equally weighty and direct impact on women.

It's great that she raises this question---it needs to be raised----and gives it its thoughtful due. This is one article I'll be sending to all my women friends: maybe they'll think twice before embracing knee-jerk centrism (read middle-class righteousness) of the Democratic party---and all the nastiness that that entails!

Patrick Scott Charles
Springfield, Oregon

Loved "Nader lashes back". It's amazing, for each charge that the reporter leveled at him, he ALWAYS had the appropriate facts and response right at his fingertips. I campaigned heavily for Ralph since June 2000, got to see him at the Portland rally, and I know that this man will carry on indefinitely in his almost-solo high-powered, well-informed and articulate challenge of the "Status Quo". In short, Go, Ralph!!!

Hilary Poole
New York, New York

Lauren Coodley writes below:
"Regarding the article by Ms Polcholnak republished today on your website: Please publish one article that defends the principled decision of many feminists to disagree with the Nader candidacy for President."

First, please be so kind as to point me to one article describing a "principled decision to disagree" that does not resort to ad hominem attacks on either Nader or his supporters. No kidding, I would really like to see one.

I have the utmost respect for my fellow feminists who decided it was more important to oppose Bush than to support Nader (as does Polcholnak... or did you conveniently skip over that part of her article?). But during the campaign, when I went looking for open-minded political debate, what I got was personal attacks on either my motives or my intelligence, or both.

Is dissent now verboten in the hallowed halls of the Left? Is that what progressivism means these days? If so, you can keep it.

To get respect from your opponents, Ms. Coodley, you have to show a little.

Katha Pollitt
New York, New York

I most certainly did call Ralph Nader! I am astonished that he would misrepresent my interview as a phone call initiated by him, and use me as an example of a critic who didn't want to hear what he had to say. (Editors Note: see Ralph Nader Lashes Back by Lenora Todaro featured on Common Dreams yesterday from this week's Village Voice)

Ralph Nader and I had a long conversation, which I reported quite favorably in my Nation column. True, I was not impressed with his grasp of women's issues. I mean, come on, drycleaning prices? Nor was I persuaded by his notion that Republicans would never dare to do anything against legal abortion because pro-choicers are the majority -- the Republicans (helped by anti-choice Democrats, to be sure) have ALREADY made abortion hard to get in many states. I was surprised that Nader, who is such a policy maven, knew so little about abortion rights and access state by state.

Nonetheless, in my column I said I was going to vote for him if New York was safe for Gore. and that's what I did.

It is very sad that Nader, a true American hero, would stoop to misrepresentations in order to paint himself as the victim of journalists.

I hope he will apologize to me on your Website.

Sincerely,
Katha Pollitt

Bo B Melander
Sweden

American presidential campaigns are always loaded with nostalgia and nonsense as a part of the show, so it's hard to read anything into what Bush said during the campaign. But his most devoted campaigners, who saved him through the primaries and other battlefields, are living in other times than ours. So he has a problem. And he is very much a part of it.

With six years' experience of politics in a cosy corner of the USA - Texas - where Democrats are as populist-conservative as Haider in Austria, Bush will face a lot of different realities in the White House. If he has the guts to rethink, he might survive in the White House for eight years, but if he is fighting yesterday's world he will soon go back to ol' Texas.

I am open to surprises. This new administration might bring a lot of new thinking and a new realism into world politics, if they open up to the world in many areas as a partner for peace, justice and welfare to the poor. But if Washington is drumming the drums of fear to keep the nation behind the show in the White House, then we are back in yesterday's future.

Perhaps, if we are lucky, we will have it both ways in the new great Vanity Fair of the World 2001.

Lauren Coodley
Vallejo, California

Regarding the article by Ms Polcholnak republished today on your website: Please publish one article that defends the principled decision of many feminists to disagree with the Nader candidacy for President. These ongoing attacks on those who opposed his candidacy reflect a disturbing disregard for the many the women who understood that their lives would be impacted daily by Bush's policies on reproductive access, the environment, and labor.

As a professor of women's history, I am deeply offended by the attacks on feminists like myself who developed an analysis that this Nader's candidacy was the wrong person at the wrong time with a deeply wrong-headed attack aimed at the Democratic Party rather than the growing power of the right wing in this country.

Mary Atwood Lamo
Sacramento, California

My Opinion of Bush's Cabinet:
Soprano is Bush's Latest Cabinet Choice

Mr. Anthony "CAPO" Soprano, a respected business leader and community activist from New York was selected today as Bush's Secretary of Labor. In his prepared remarks, Bush praised Soprano's strong family values, deep opposition to abortion and unerring defense of the right to bear arms.

"He will bring to the post years of experience dealing with the hardcore issues and I can assure you that organized labor in this country will never be the same", Bush said waving to the choirboys performing for the occasion. "He will be taking his place among his peers", added Bush, as they exited the church where the two prayed together.

Judge Antonin Scalia praised the choice saying "It is a proud day not only for Italian-Americans but for all Americans. This is another historic decision that really let's people know what we are all about."

Meanwhile, Laura Bush and Carmen Soprano met separately and released no formal statement. "The two really felt they had a lot in common", a source close to the families confided and added that they discussed how to help their husbands cope with the enormous stress they face in their jobs. "After GW's boildown a few weeks ago Laura has been really concerned", the source concluded.

When asked why he chose Soprano, Bush shrugged and replied, "I am an alto so I figured we could use a Soprano."

Bush's newest choice has met with wide approval.

James Kenworthy
Longmont, Colorado

Go to your state capitol or some other convenient location on January 20th at noon and protest the dismal state of democracy in this country. It's a Saturday, you can go. Take a friend, take a carload. If we don't do it, nobody will.

Lance Del Goebel
Manhattan, Illinois

The last time we the people of this land were governed by a foreign power (England then, the Corporate Reich today), had governmental policies and taxes ramrodded down our throats without the benefit of political representation (same as today unless you're stupid enough to think that a vote for Gush or Bore was anything but a vote for THEIR 2 hand picked puppets ), the last time a foreign power oppressed the American people we kicked em in the balls and tossed them out on their big fat asses.

I'm ready for history to repeat itself. Let's toss Supreme Court Justices, Congressmen and their corporate handlers in the Boston Harbor and never let them set foot on our land again. They'd be getting off easy for 2 decades of treason.

PC WARS are coming ( The PEOPLE and the CONSTITUTION vs POLITICIANS and their CORPORATE handlers )

We will never get our democracy back until we deal with the corporate cancer that has infested our government and left us strangers to our own government.

Jeff Cohen
Woodstock, New York

Following is an unpublished letter sent last week to NYTimes

To the Editor:
Conservative justices on the Supreme Court have achieved a favored result by wielding a clause, Equal Protection, they often disfavor. Because Broward and Palm Beach counties used slightly different interpretations of the "intent of the voter " standard in counting punch-card ballots, this was deemed a violation of Equal Protection, although it involved a small disparity. A much starker Equal Protection problem is raised by the fact that, as the Times found in a study of most of Florida’s counties, punch-card ballots were five times as likely to be counted as non-votes for president as ballots counted by modern, more expensive optical scanners. That disparity involves tens of thousands of Florida ballots.

By working mightily to close the lid on this year’s presidential election, Supreme Court conservatives may have inadvertently opened a can of worms in the form of future election challenges. It will be interesting to see if their commitment to Equal Protection persists.

Michele Gale-Sinex
Oakland, California

My progressive/populist views echo much of what is being said here. However I take strong exception to the use of the word "rape"--which I've heard repeatedly to describe the Republican coup.

Rape is not stealing an election. Rape is forcible sexual intercourse, with violent intent. It is a physical act, not a judicial or legislative one. It uses sexual violation as a way of asserting power over another person. There may have been violent intent in the case of the election, and certainly there was the intent of a seizure of power. But let's call that what it is, and not cheapen a word that refers to a very specific form of assault--one that is, for starters, more one-on-one and personal.

What happened was appalling on its own terms. America needs language that expresses the act we all witnessed and revulsion we all feel to have power used in this way. We don't have to mis-name it. We don't have to sexualize it. We don't have to take away from the experiences of the many people--mostly women--who've experienced rapes. Stealing an election is not rape. I doubt that anyone who had ever experienced sexual assault would experience it as the same as a judicial/political coup. And those who have been lucky enough not to experience sexual assault ought not to use that word so lightly.

This was not a rape. It was a coup. It was the stealing of an election. We need to name these power games for what they are, and if that means reclaiming or naming anew the full range of ways that power gets misused, so be it. These things happen in part because we don't have language to express it, or the means to point to it. We use similes and metaphors, and before we know it, we forget just what it was that actually happened. Let's not do that here. Let's temper our anger and name it coolly and clearly. A coup. Theft of the election. Affirmative action and workfare for a rich, white, middle-aged, smirking lightweight, posing as a candidate and acting out the ultimate Entitlement Fantasy in the U.S.--being given the presidency for Xmas by his Big Oil Poppy and their network of friends.

Daniel Athearn
Eugene, Oregon

Why Differing Criteria Used in Hand Recounts Does Not Constitute Unequal Protection

Punch-card ballots are sometimes rejected by counting machines because chads are incompletely punched out (and perhaps for other reasons). Manual recounts are then needed to get a more accurate tally including more (though perhaps still not all) of the votes that voters intended to cast. In this process decisions must be made as to what characteristics of a ballot will indicate valid votes and which will not. Suppose that in county A an indented chad on a particular ballot is counted as a vote, while in a neighboring county B an exactly similar indented chad on an exactly similar ballot is construed as a non-vote. Seven members of the United States Supreme Court and others are concerned that this might result in unequal protection of the right to vote, a violation of the Constitution. Their reasoning seems to be that some persons in county A who do not fully punch their ballots would have a greater ensurance of having their vote counted than such persons in county B. It is true that the latter are exposed to a certain possibility of not having their vote counted. But it must be remembered that an indented chad is not a clear indication of an intent to vote, since the person might have pushed the stylus part of the way down and then realized he/she was making a mistake, or changed her/his mind; it is less clear than, say, a chad broken out at one corner or two corners. Therefore there is also a possiblity of the opposite kind of mistaken judgment of intent occuring in county A, namely, that said ballot will be counted as containing a vote for a candidate when the intent to do so was not there. This would be, one would think, an equally serious failing in the accuracy of the count from the standpoint of voting rights.

The degree of probability of either error—counting an intended non-vote as a vote and vice versa—is not precisely kown. All that can be said is that each procedure of interpretation falls somewhere within a certain range of plausible procedures, assuming that the count is being carried out by reasonable people. The comparative degrees of voter protection afforded by the two procedures cannot be quantified. Therefore they cannot be said to be either equal or unequal. Voters in each county are exposed to EQUALLY RANDOM and EQUALLY UNKNOWN degrees of probability that their actions in the voting booth will be mistakenly construed in one of these two ways.

By contrast, it hardly needs stating that an unequal protection of voting rights exists when in one county a manual count of ballots rejected by the machine FAILS TO BE CARRIED OUT while in another county a more accurate balloting system, such as optical scanners, is used which renders a hand count unnecessary.

Lois Thompson

Being one of the millions of Americans who just can't swallow the idea of having a fraudulent President shoved down our throats, I have laid awake wondering what we could do to give We the People across the nation a voice to their profound disdain in a peaceful yet extremely effective way. This may have already been thought of, but I awoke with this idea.... Get the word out for all the nation'speople to hear and be made aware that they can coalesce to make a peaceful statement by having a U.S. Flag hanging upside down (meaning "Distress") ON INAUGURATION DAY. Have it hanging on their house, car, street corners, shirts, jackets anywhere and everywhere!). Small surcease, but at least we'll let them know we're out here objecting strongly. I pray that this gets some thought and action.,

Thank you for being there.....

Thanks & many blessings, Lois

Ellen Levin
Lake Forest, Illinois

I just want to urge everyone to read the Robert McChesney article which Common Dreams is carrying - U.S. Wouldn't Tolerate Our Election in Nicaragua. It tells the whole story of the sorry state of this nation in a clear and powerful way. Thank you!